IHAVEGAS
-
Posts
4,275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Profiles
Events
Store
Posts posted by IHAVEGAS
-
-
1 hour ago, RJH said:
I would be fine with no major/minor, as long as we got rid of popper calibration too. Just go with steel must fall to score, and if a 40 or 45 knocks it down and a 9 don't, you could right to the FBI and explain the unfairness.
I hate the full sized poppers. Even with major sometimes you get hosed (reshoot or failure to fall) due to wind, target stand shifting in muddy ground, target reacting differently depending on which side of scoring zone you hit, ad nauseam.
And they are a pain to drag around.
Plates & smaller poppers are not perfect, but given the opportunity I leave the big stuff in the shed.
-
19 hours ago, redpillregret said:
As a relative newbie I thought PF to be silly from the get-go. Not my rules. It’s a game I want to play. It isn’t real life.
That is how I see it, a game.
I think when we see people carry pcc's or wear their limited - open - revolver rigs in real life for self protection, then it might be time to relate game rules to real life. Probably a minimum trigger weight should come first.
-
-
Not a fan of the Dawson design for that gun. They can be made to work if you mar them for an interference fit & use loctite red but I'm unreasonably fussy about such things and my old eyes really like the 3.0mm wide EGD.
-
18 minutes ago, radny97 said:
That sounds like a dare! But I’ll pass on this one. I don’t feel like getting flamed for two weeks while everyone chimes in. Haha.
Not intentional. Good call!
-
48 minutes ago, radny97 said:
Even better, now that the FBI has concluded that there’s no substantial performance difference between 9mm, 40 and 45 on real targets, USPSA ought to get rid of making minor versus major PF.
It is a bit off topic but I read the same thing in the latest USPSA mag (area 1 candidate) and could not think of any reason why 99.97% of USPSA shooters would care what the FBI concluded about gun wounds or want it to effect their preferred pastime. If I was going to write up some sort of a trolling topic to rile up the shooters this might be it
.
-
38 minutes ago, radny97 said:
But that’s only because there’s huge resistance to effecting institutional change when things have been done a certain way for so long.
Not true for me. Minor allows accuracy to be more of an equalizer and major is just a different kind of a thrill. My local club does a Friday - Saturday shoot each month, Friday. I shoot a Tanfo 9mm stock 2 in Production & Saturday I shoot a Stock 2 in 40 (fo-tey) in limited major, the difference in the experience is night & day & the planning changes a bit when Charles do not hurt much and a Delta is not about the same as a no penalty Mike.
-
It seems like Tanfo mixes up parts just to piss you off.
Anyway my newer stock 2 has a different rear sight leaf than my older stock 2.
Newer is on the left.
With my preferred front sight (Tanfo 1.5 mm f.o. or EGD 1.0 mm clone) I can't get height adjusted down far enough on the newer gun at left in the picture. Would need either a .02" shorter rear or a taller EGD front.
Couple questions, anybody ever mess with grinding off the top of the leaf & grinding the window deeper? PD does not stock the taller EGD front sight, anyone know of somebody that you could buy them through (I'm in USA) ?
-
3 hours ago, Sdlrodeo said:
Basically I swung my gun from a target on the right to a target on the left. There was a wall in between. I believe I brought the gun back in towards me just slightly (to avoid hitting the wall) and when I did I squeezed off a round.
1 hour ago, theWacoKid said:If there was movement (more than a step as defined) things change, but in my opinion a transition is the process of "shooting at targets" so there's a gray area
"Changing body position" - maybe that only means the examples noted for 'movement' on page 59 or perhaps what he did qualifies, particularly because he thinks he pulled the gun back while swinging?? Dunno.
Really like
33 minutes ago, motosapiens said:even if you could get out of the dq on a technicality, it's probably better to suck it up and learn from it.
-
Initialed all of mine & my stapler, works well for personal tools at a job site as well.
-
1 hour ago, Sdlrodeo said:
Snarkyness neither intended nor invited.
Wow, really sucks the fun out of this thread.
Good to share this stuff I think.
-
3 minutes ago, MemphisMechanic said:
I *RE* load them. Just like brass. They’ll go 3 or 4 loadings before they split at the case mouth when you try to load them one last time.
Interesting. When brass splits (9mm - 130 power factor loads) it still seems to work fine so I just don't worry about it and throw away the split brass after the fact.
Does aluminum work the same way for you?
-
On 3/31/2018 at 2:57 PM, Zmaniac said:
Nice tip! I'm interested in using this method to measure when I need to replace the recoil spring.
Before it breaks.
I never replace recoil springs. Only issue I have ever seen is a broken spring in a compact 9mm.
-
I have bought or inherited, pricey beam, cheap beam, pricey big name electronic, cheap electronic.
They all give me the same weight. I like beam for normal use & electronic when I am in the process of adjusting charge weight.
-
All else fails a dremel cutting wheel could take down an aircraft carrier with time and patience, johnbu's idea seems a great one.
To make sure & take the set out of the lok tite I used a torch set to fine flame & heated the tip of the site till it glowed.
Personally I think the Dawson sight is poorly designed for the Tanfo, they work if you mar them for an interference fit & use lok tite red & throw the too small wrong location screw away. I buy the Eric Grauffel sights in stock at Patriot Defense, I think it is EG, the $62 (ouch) one that looks like oem.
-
I guess in the end the real learning is that if you game the unload & show clear process instead of waiting for the range commands it can save you from a dq.
-
21 minutes ago, Aircooled6racer said:
Hello: That is well done. What I find funny is when people say they don't like PCC but love shooting carry optics or as I like to call it "Welfare Open". That is why I like shooting USPSA matches since you can shoot so many divisions and have fun in all of them. Now I just need to get one more classifier for Carry Optics and I will be classified in all divisions. Thanks, Eric
Fixed it for you.
-
Practicing with a good revolver is good for my semi-auto accuracy, for whatever reason.
-
6 hours ago, Kraj said:
8.3.7 is if your finished unload and show clear.
If you aren't finished you are free to keep shooting, that's where the differing though are
Not with me, I see it this way.
9 hours ago, Joe4d said:If lighting off a negligent round isnt unsafe, I dont know what is. Really kinda ridiculous the way this section of the rules are applied..
10.5 clearly says its not an all inclusive list, yet for some reason unless the specific act isnt spelled out, it some how isnt unsafe.
But really just want to do what is supposed to be done. It would be nice to remove "not an all inclusive list" from the rule book if we are supposed to use the dq list as an all inclusive list, or else, perhaps better, to make rulings official as things like this surface.
Troy's reasoning for ruling a dq and others reasoning for ruling against it both look at the rules as if they were an inclusive list.
-
32 minutes ago, davsco said:
from the recent post above (not for this incident [as it sounds like the competitor left and didn't contest the dq, so no ruling was called for] but another one that is very similar)
http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/uspsa/unloading122117.pdf
In other words, the competitor's deliberate actions dictate the call here. Intentionally firing a shot at a target, whether it's "aimed" or fired from the hip at a close target, is not a DQ per 10.4.3 because the unloading process was interrupted by the competitor to fire that shot. That is something we can all observe. If the process is not interrupted, and it's clear that the competitor is attempting to unload per the range command, then 10.4.3 applies and it's a disqualification for an AD under 10.4.3.
So, does that mean that it is official that Gary was wrong?
-
On 4/10/2018 at 6:49 PM, robport said:
If the RO is absolutely sure of what he saw, then no argument. I've seen a lot of RO's make that call from weird angles, where there is no way they can be sure. If I'm not sure, I will issue a warning. Loaded or unloaded doesn't enter into the decision for me though.
I agree in general. Not sure what you mean by issue a warning, as a courtesy to the shooter I will tell them if something looked borderline after they are finished with hammer down and holster.
When shooting I try to take away a nervous r.o.'s chance to make a bad call, exaggerate pointing the gun down range when reloading & moving to my weak side & etc..
-
11 hours ago, Nathanb said:
In your opinion what made it unsafe? Muzzle down range, round didn’t impact within ten feet, no prop struck.
Throwing unexpected shots in this example I think is one of many practices you frown on because of what happens when you combine mistake number two.
It is sort of like, why was breaking the 180 unsafe, the shooter didn't even fire a shot? Why was throwing a round after "if clear hammer down" unsafe with "Muzzle down range, round didn’t impact within ten feet, no prop struck" ?
I understand that the book specifically calls out the examples above as dq's , but the book also includes "but are not limited to:" .
Great points made by others about why they do not consider the issue unsafe, I just do not read things the same way.
-
10 hours ago, Gary Stevens said:
When we act as Range Officers we are to apply the rules evenly and only when they have been violated.
Agreed.
When I was in r.o. class I brought something up about production guns, the NROI made a call and a couple months later Troy made the opposite call.
I notified my instructor about it (not being Mr. Smarty Pants, instructor is a good guy & I thought would like the info) and he responded that the call is the call but it was his job to look at things the best he could based on what is written down.
I have also been at a match where Troy & Mike Foley & a very good RM & a very experienced CRO spent 10 minutes figuring out how many procedurals to give a shooter. I would say debating except that you don't really debate when the King is involved.
I think R.O.'s need to do the best they can to apply the rules fairly and as they read them, if and when the RM disagrees the R.O.'s need to not fret about it. The next RM may do just the opposite.
-
10 minutes ago, Gary Stevens said:
So you have DQ'd a shooter for unsafe gun handling, remember the call starts with you, what would be your explination to justify your call?
In my opinion that was unsafe gun handling which is a match dq per section 10.5, please note the first sentence prior to some specific examples, if you disagree please tell the RM when he gets here, hopefully he is on his meds today.
. 
Do you like the new Production rules?
in USPSA/IPSC Rules
Posted
Major/minor will get you killed in a real gun fight.